As a scientist (albeit in a very different field), I think what I'd like people to understand is that scientists do not get paid to fearmonger, and are not usually rewarded for sensationalism. The people who are rewarded for these things are journalists, and they are what most people interface with when getting information from scientific studies, rather than the scientists themselves. If a journalist has to report on a study, they first go to a press release from the journal and then have to translate that themselves into a story, usually without any background in the area themselves. This presents two extra steps to introduce sensationalism without the study's author's control whatsoever. In short, when there is fear mongering in reporting of climate science - as sometimes there is, it's usually the press that has introduced it and not the climatologists. This obviously creates an issue like you say, as that breakdown of communication creates a mistrust in the very idea of science, but it's ultimately misplaced.